Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
- Decided
- July 11, 2001
- Docket
- S086738
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- California
Cited 2,941 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- stating that plaintiff bears 17 burden of proving UCL claim by a preponderance of the evidence — Anderson v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment (2020)
- recognizing in this context that inference of unlawful conspiracy required by Matsushita “is reasonable if, and only if, it implies unlawful conspiracy more likely than permissible competition — Smith v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2014)
- adopting the Matsushita standard and making it applicable to claims under the Cartwright Act — In re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Cheese Antitrust Litigation (2014)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion MOSK, J.
We granted review in this cause to clarify the law that courts must apply in ruling on motions for summary judgment, both in actions generally and specifically in antitrust actions for unlawful conspiracy.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 24 P.3d 493 (2001)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.